Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

[[Phill]]

Originally Posted by sterlinguini

So much inanity ITT. Minority groups would actually LOVE to live in a blue state under an RP presidency so all these self righteous proclamations like "gay people who like their rights..." etc amount to little more than sensationalist effluvia. RP only wants to withdraw Federal influence for these issues so every State would get to respond differently, and not every state is a redneck bible thumpin incest swamp. LDO.

So sick this needs to be pointed out. Think more, people, and if you still can't see past the troll blinders yeah maybe smoking some pot would be a good idea for you.

This made a lot more sense before California, one of the most blue states, passed prop 8 banning gay marriage. Which is about to be ruled unconstitutional. Which Ron Paul wants to stop happening making federal judges unable to rule state laws in the area of marriage unconstitutional.

I mean you have to be literally unwilling to learn even a vague amount of recent American history to fail to understand that states rights is toxic for civil rights.

[twofingerted]

Your assuming that by handing power to the federal govt. only good can be done. What if they start passing laws or making court rulings that are oppressive? You then have zero recourse except at the federal level.

[twofingerted]

Originally Posted by [Phill]

To paraphrase Ron Paul, you do realise that Ron Paul wont be president forever, right?

Him wanting to pull America out of the UN is the best example of how America could have unchecked and unwarranted aggression. He wants to create a system where America doesnt have to listen to any international laws or groups.

That same UN, fwiw, was created precisely to stop things such as Hitler running over countries.

Lol they already don't.

Look at the WTO ruling for Antigua, I think, pertaining to online gambling.

[[Phill]]

Originally Posted by twofingerted

Your assuming that by handing power to the federal govt. only good can be done. What if they start passing laws or making court rulings that are oppressive? You then have zero recourse except at the federal level.

When has the judicial branch of the federal government done anything bad for civil liberties?

Im guessing we are talking 19th century for a bunch of immigrant rights, probably some mid 20th century with black rights but i cant think of anything off hand.

[twofingerted]

Originally Posted by [Phill]

When has the judicial branch of the federal government done anything bad for civil liberties?

Im guessing we are talking 19th century for a bunch of immigrant rights, probably some mid 20th century with black rights but i cant think of anything off hand.

Does the phrase "seperate but equal sound familiar"? Yes, recently their haven't been many that hurt civil rights. The thing is you're allowing the possibility for it to happen. Just because "it has never happened" is not an excuse. I would rather have insurance that it can't happen then, well maybe it could but we will worry about it then.

I'm curious do you think it is important to have any states or state laws at all? If you believe in a very strong federal govt. what is the point of local governance? Wouldn't it be better to just let the fed's run the entire country and make no discernment between states?

To me that form of centralized power is much more dangerous than allowing states to determine things for themselves.

[twofingerted]

This is why I think incorporation of the bill of rights was good, but I still don't agree with it, because you are allowing federal powers to go unchecked.

[[Phill]]

You realise in this thread when talking about states banning various stuff like sodomy laws and interracial marriage you used the phrase "we have moved on, it wouldnt happen now", right?

But yeah, Jim Crow laws are a good one (its been a long day, my mind aint screwed on right) however its also true that as society progressed so did the SCOTUS then overruling the separate but equal doctrine.

Long story short there has been no evidence that i know of that SCOTUS has ever gone backwards in terms of applying civil liberties and yet on the other hand there are states as recently as the early 2000s applying sodomy laws that SCOTUS had to overrule. And yet you are telling me that SCOTUS is the one that needs to be reigned in and that going backwards to states rights is a good idea? That just seems insane to me.

[twofingerted]

Originally Posted by [Phill]

You realise in this thread when talking about states banning various stuff like sodomy laws and interracial marriage you used the phrase "we have moved on, it wouldnt happen now", right?

But yeah, Jim Crow laws are a good one (its been a long day, my mind aint screwed on right) however its also true that as society progressed so did the SCOTUS then overruling the separate but equal doctrine.

Long story short there has been no evidence that i know of that SCOTUS has ever gone backwards in terms of applying civil liberties and yet on the other hand there are states as recently as the early 2000s applying sodomy laws that SCOTUS had to overrule. And yet you are telling me that SCOTUS is the one that needs to be reigned in and that going backwards to states rights is a good idea? That just seems insane to me.

Finally, you guys are engaging the actual arguements. I appreciate it Phill.

That's fine and we can agree to disagree. As I stated before with Max Raker and others, believing that a more centralized power is the best way to protect civil liberties is a legit posistion. I would argue that there have been very few highly centralized govts. that end up respecting civil liberites. Rarely does power consolidated to a small number of people end well.

[krmont22]

Saying the NDAA doesn't matter because "I will never be indefinitely detained" sounds eerily familiar to what happened in Nazi Germany.

[[Phill]]

Fly has been pretty vocal about being against NDAA even though he doesnt expect to be detained. Dont mistake him as thinking it doesnt matter unless you can back that up with some quote ive not seen.

[[Phill]]

Originally Posted by twofingerted

Finally, you guys are engaging the actual arguements. I appreciate it Phill.

That's fine and we can agree to disagree. As I stated before with Max Raker and others, believing that a more centralized power is the best way to protect civil liberties is a legit posistion. I would argue that there have been very few highly centralized govts. that end up respecting civil liberites. Rarely does power consolidated to a small number of people end well.

This misses that most highly centralised governments (and i dont even think America is one tbh) dont derive their power structure from a document like the constitution that has specific checks, balances and safeguards built into it.

The separation of powers with judicial, legislative and executive all having control over each other is extremely powerful and the entire processes are designed to be a brake when there are disagreements, with the filibuster being the perfect example. Of course that is open to abuse but that is another debate for another thread.

To loop it back to the earlier subject the reason the We The People Act is so bad is because it breaks down those checks and balances. When the judicial branch cant keep the legislative and executive branch in check then you start breaking down the very foundation of the government and the constitution itself.

If Ron Paul wants to have marriage be defined by states then there are clear routes to do so that dont interfere with the separation of powers, namely a constructional amendment. However naturally this is extremely hard to pass requiring not just both legislative and the executive branches to sign off but (going from memory) 2/3 of states signing off on it too. He is trying to shortcut around the processes which is in essence very dangerous just in slippery slope terms.

[krmont22]

His response to having a discussion about it was "I am never gonna be indefinitely detained, though"

It would be similar to me saying "I am never gonna be gay, though" if someone wants to talk about gay rights. If he is against it, he should voice that opinion instead of being a dick.

[FlyWf]

That was my point, dude. I care about gay rights even though I'm not gay, I care about the NDAA even though I'm not gonna get detained. There are principles involved that go beyond my personal situation. I'm white and middle class, whoever wins the Presidency is gonna be good for me.

But this thread is full of libertarians saying that it's a "fringe issue" and "irrelevant" that Ron Paul is so afraid of gays getting married he thinks state bans of gay marriage need immunity from the Constitution, but to a gay person who wants to get married it probably doesn't seem so fringe.

[krmont22]

I agree they aren't fringe, but you don't make your arguments in a civil manner. As a mod, you are supposed to set an example on the forum. If you care about the issues, attack the argument and state your position instead of half the time using ad hominem and/or snarky remarks.

Also, saying things like Ron Paul is afraid of gays getting married is pretty strong.

Trying to lump every single RP supporter in as twofingerted is also getting old.

[TomCollins]

Originally Posted by Case Closed

Those are my real answers.

I don't expect RP to be able to work with congress at all. That's kind of another problem. Everyone likes to bitch about Washington career politicians, but they are the ones who have run the show for a while. They have a track record and you can have a vague idea of what they will do. With RP you don't know that he has never been one to compromise on anything with anyone. That does not give me confidence that he will be able to enact legislation. It would be interesting, but I doubt it would be beneficial.

Not working with Congress is a feature, not a bug IMO.

Originally Posted by Case Closed

I combined the wars because I think that the president has a lot more control over those issues in a singular fashion. The president can have control over the other issues in ways that use multiple domestic powers of the president. Powers like the budget control and senate appointments can affect women's reproductive rights in different ways.

I do think he will veto a lot of bad bills that get through now. But considering his unwillingness to compromise and his extremist views things might turn ugly.

If Congress required 2/3 majority to pass any bill, do you think that it would make the bills that passed better or worse on average? I can see the argument both ways- it might add more pork to get that much support. A lot of the worst bills passed had a lot of bipartisan support, so if that's what you are arguing, I can see it.